布拉格规则－国际仲裁中取证规则

更新时间：2018-06-07 11:23:11  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：2453次

“国际仲裁的逐渐美国化：现在是发展证据裁判规则的恰当时机吗？”此为2017年4月举行的第四届俄罗斯仲裁协会会议的标题。仲裁从业人员强调需要一套可供选择的证据规则。一年后，2018年4月8日，被颁布了《国际仲裁取证规则》草案，即所谓的《布拉格规则》。该草案发布用于讨论，最终版本将于2018年10月／11月通过。

什么是布拉格规则

正如国际律师协会关于国际仲裁取证规则（“IBA规则”）一样，《布拉格规则》将为国际仲裁中的取证提供指引。仲裁各方可一致同意将该规则作为具有约束力的规则或指引。然而，与IBA规则相反，布拉格规则遵循究问制（Inquisitorial）的方法，使仲裁庭发挥了更为积极的作用。

工作组的目标是能在2018年12月15日布拉格届时举行的仲裁会议上颁布一套最终规则。该草案11条规定包括了争议友好解决中的仲裁庭主动作用、事实认定、书面证据、事实证人、专家和协助等内容。

根据草案第1条，如当事人一致同意适用本规则或经仲裁庭主动与当事人协商后，应适用本规则。

与IBA取证规则的区别

布拉格规则的工作组批判说，“现在，选择仲裁的当事人普遍都对仲裁程序中的耗时和耗费很不满意。”“造成很大程度不满的原因是取证程序，特别是证据开示、使用多个事实和专家证人以及冗长庭审中的交叉询问。”这意味着工作组已经明确了仲裁中取证的三个特征，事务委员会认为对仲裁程序的耗时和耗费不满可归责于：（一）证据开示；（二）太多事实和专家证人；（三）在冗长庭审中进行的交叉询问。在下文，我们将仔细研究这三个特征并比较IBA规则和布拉格规则中的相应规则：

IBA规则和布拉格规则下的证据开示

虽然从大陆法的角度来看，证据开示是一个比较陌生的现象，但从普通法的角度来看并非如此，在国际仲裁中也并非如此。在一定程度上，证据开示在仲裁程序中被认为是取证的适当手段。但有争议的是证据开示的范围。IBA规则的目的是为了防止仲裁中大量的且昂贵的美国式的证据开示。

根据IBA规则的第3（3）条，一方可请求提供特定文件或“具体明确要求的文件类别”。在实践中，作者很少看到请求提供特定文件的。大多数情况下，各方互相请求提供一定类别的文件。更重要的是，这些类别通常被较宽泛地描述，使得（至少）数百个文件被归为这些类别。除此之外，对至少是某种类型的电子取证的请求已经变得相当普遍，即请求另一方提供与特定搜索条件相匹配的所有电子邮件或其他电子存储的文档。因此，证据开示往往是一个非常昂贵和耗时的程序。

IBA 规则的第9（2）条确立了仲裁庭得以拒绝证据开示请求的事由。例如证据开示的请求与案件缺少足够的关联性或对于案件结果不重要(第9(2)(a)条)或如提供该被请求的证据会带来不合理的负担(第9(2)(c)条)，仲裁庭应拒该请求。在作者经验中，仲裁庭（尤其是欧洲大陆的仲裁庭），广泛利用这些权利以拒绝证据开示的请求。

根据布拉格规则，证据开示将受更多限制。布拉格规则的起草者旨在防止大量的证据开示，并在第4.1条确立了作为一般规则的规定，即“仲裁庭应避免出现大量的证据开示，包括任何形式的电子取证。”此外，根据第4.2条，当事人不能请求“一类类别的文件”，而只能请求特定文件。因此，根据布拉格规则，例如“关于XXX的所有文件、会议纪要、说明文件和备忘录等”证据开示请求将不予允许。第4.2条规定：

4.2 但是，当事人可以请求仲裁庭命令另一方出示特定文件，该文件：

a）与案件的结果有关联或对案件结果是重要的；

b）不为公众所知的；以及

c) 由另一方持有。

在证据开示方式上体现的差异据认为是IBA规则与布拉格规则之间最实际相关的差异。

IBA规则和布拉格规则下的证人数量

根据IBA规则，“每一方应将其请求出庭的证人告知仲裁庭和另一方当事人”（第8（1）条），即最终由当事人决定在证人听证会上将有多少证人出庭。因此，经常有许多作证的证人并未对相关的事实进行作证，或者并不能协助仲裁庭解决争议中的问题。

作为一个新的理念，布拉格规则将此决定权授予了仲裁庭。布拉格规则的第5.2条和第5.3条包括了两种方式供讨论。在第5.2条下，完全由仲裁庭决定哪些证人需要被审问：“仲裁庭收到另一方当事人的意见后，将决定哪些是开庭需要的证人。”第5.3条中的另一种方式是仲裁庭通知当事人哪些证人应作证，因为他们可以协助仲裁庭解决争议。这个程序很可能会限制证人的数量。

根据IBA规则和布拉格规则对证人的盘问

工作组认为，不仅证人的数量是一个值得批评的问题，盘问证人的方法亦是。IBA规则的第8.3条规定了口头证言的一般程序，也规定了交叉盘问。但是，仲裁的进行最终由仲裁庭自由裁量（IBA规则第8.3（F）条）。理论上，仲裁庭也可以按照IBA规则遵循究问式方法。但在实践中，很少有这样的情况。

尽管工作组批评交叉盘问，但布拉格规则并没有明确排除交叉盘问。只有从布拉格规则的字里行间才能发现该规则支持仲裁员对证人进行盘问。根据第5.6条，“对事实证人的盘问应在仲裁庭的指示和控制下进行”。此外，多条规定明确了，仲裁庭在确立事实、取证和适用法律规定的程序中应发挥更积极的作用。（参见第3.1条、第5.6条、第7条, 第9条, 第12条）。

结论

布拉格规则无疑是国际仲裁中现经常被适用的IBA规则的一个值得注意对应规则（counter-project）。IBA规则已占尽先机，但有趣的还是要看是否会在一段时间后在实践中普遍适用布拉格规则，尤其是在一些双方当事人都来自大陆法系国家的仲裁程序。

  [英文内容]

The Prague Rules –Inquisitorial Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration

 

Author: Dr. MarkusAltenkirch and MalikaBoussihmad

 

 

Businessman writing aletter, notes or correspondence or signing a document or agreement, close upview of his hand and the paper

 

 “Creeping Americanization of international arbitration: is it the right time to develop inquisitorial rules of evidence?”[1]A session of the fourth Russian Arbitration Association Conference in April 2017 stood under this title. Arbitration practitioners emphasized the need of an alternative set of rules on the taking of evidence.[2]A year later, on 8 April 2018, a draft of the “Inquisitorial Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration”, the so-called “Prague Rules”,was released.[3]The draft was published for the purpose of discussion. The final version is tobe approved in October / November 2018.

What are the “Prague Rules”?

Just as the IBA Rules, the Prague Rules shallprovide guidance on taking of evidence in international arbitration. Parties toarbitrations may agree on the rules to be binding or as guidance. However,contrary to the IBA Rules, the Prague Rules follow an inquisitorial approach,providing a more active role of the tribunal.

The Working Group has the aim to officially launchthe final set of rules on 15 December 2018 on the occasion of an arbitrationconference in Prague. The eleven articles of the draft deal amongst others with the tribunal’s proactive role, fact finding, documentary evidence, fact witnesses, experts and assistance in amicable settlement.

According to Article 1 of the Draft, the Rules shall apply if the parties agree on their application or by the tribunal’s own initiative upon consultation with the parties.

What are the differences to the IBA Rules on Taking of Evidence?

The Working Group of the Prague Rules criticized that “[i]t has become almost commonplace these days that users of arbitration are dissatisfied with the time and costs involved in the proceedings. The procedures for taking evidence, particularly document production,and using multiple fact and expert witnesses and their cross-examination at lengthy hearings are, to a large extent, reasons for this dissatisfaction.”[4]That means, the Working Group has identified three features of evidence taking in arbitration which – according to the Working Group – are mainly responsiblefor a dissatisfaction with the time and costs of arbitration proceedings: (i)document production, (ii) too many fact and expert witnesses, and (iii) cross examination at lengthy hearings. In the following, we will take a closer lookat these three features and compare the respective rules in the IBA Rules and the Prague Rules:

Document production under the IBA Rules and the Prague Rules

While document production is a rather unknown phenomenon from a civil law perspective, it is not from a common law perspective and also not unknown in international arbitration. To a certain extent document production is regarded as an appropriate mean for taking evidence in arbitral proceedings. It is rather the extent of document production which is disputed. The IBA Rules aim to prevent extensive and expensive American-style discovery in arbitration.[5]

Under Art, 3(3) IBA Rules, a party may request aspecific document or a “narrow and specific requested category of documents”.In practice, the authors have rarely seen requests for specific documents.Mostly, parties exchange requests for categories of documents. What is more,the categories are often described in a broad manner so that hundreds – if notmore – documents fall into such categories. Apart from that, it has become quite common to request at least some sort of e-discovery, i.e. to request the other party to produce all emails or other electronically stored documents which match certain search terms. As a result of all this, document productionis very often a very costly and time-consuming exercise.

Art. 9(2) IBA Rules establishes reasons for tribunals to deny a request for document production. A tribunal shall for example deny a request if it lacks sufficient relevance to the case or materiality to its outcome (Art. 9(2)(a)) or if it would be an unreasonable burden to produce the requested evidence (Art. 9(2)(c)). In the authors’ experience, tribunals – in particular in Continental Europe – make extensive use of these rights to deny a request for document production.

Under the Prague Rules, document production will bemore limited. The drafters of the Prague Rules aim to prevent extensive document production and explicitly establish in Art. 4.1 as a general rule that “the Arbitral Tribunal shall avoid extensive production of documents,including any form of e-discovery.” Moreover, under Art. 4.2, the parties cannot request a “category of documents”, but only specific documents. As a result, documents production requests referring to – for example – “all documents, meeting minutes, notes and memoranda regarding xxx”will not be admissible under the Prague Rules. Art. 4.2 states:

4.2.      The Party, however,may request the Arbitral Tribunal to order the other Party to produce (a) specific document(s) which:

a)is relevant and material to the outcome of thecase;

b) is not in the public domain; and

c) is in the possession of the other Party.

It is submitted that the difference in the approac htowards document production is the most practically-relevant difference between the IBA Rules and the Prague Rules.

The number of witnesses under the IBA Rules and the Prague Rules

Under the IBA Rules “each Party shall inform the Arbitral Tribunal and the other Parties of the witnesses whose appearance it requests” (Art. 8(1)), i.e. ultimately, the parties decide how many witnesses will appear at the evidentiary hearing. As a result, often many witnesses testify who do not testify on relevant facts and do not assist the tribunal in resolving the issues in dispute.

As an alternative concept, the Prague Rules delegate this decision to the tribunal. The Prague Rules in Art. 5.2 and5.3 contain two approaches for the purpose of discussion. Under Art. 5.2,it is entirely up to the tribunal to decide which witnesses are called for examination: “The Arbitral Tribunal, after receiving comments from the other Party, will take decision on witnesses to be called for examination during the hearing.” The alternative solution in Art. 5.3 is that the tribunal informs the parties about which witnesses should testify because they can assist the tribunal in resolving the issues in dispute. It is likely that this procedure will limit the number of witnesses.

Examination of witnesses under the IBA Rules and the Prague Rules

According to the Working Group, not only the number of witnesses is a point of criticism, but also the method to examine witnesses.Art. 8.3 IBA Rules sets out the general procedure of oral testimony and provides for cross-examination. In the end, the conduct of the proceedings,however, lies in the tribunal’s discretion (Art. 8.3 (f), IBA Guidelines).Theoretically, a tribunal could also under the IBA Rules follow an inquisitorial approach.[6]In practice, this is, however, rarely the case.

Even though the Working Group criticized cross-examination, the Prague Rules do not explicitly rule out cross-examination. One has to read it between the lines that the Prague Rulesfavor an interrogation of the witnesses by the arbitrators. Pursuant toArt. 5.6, “the examination of the fact witness shall be conducted under the direction and control of the Arbitral Tribunal”. Moreover, it is stipulated in various provisions that the tribunal shall take a more activerole in the procedure of establishing facts, taking evidence and applying legal provisions (cf. Arts. 3.1, 5.6, 7, 9, 12).

Conclusion

The Prague Rules are certainly a notable counter-project to the IBA Rules which are nowadays very often applied in international arbitration. The IBA Rules have a head-start, but it will be interesting to see whether the Prague Rules will after some time prevail in practice – in particular in arbitration proceedings where both parties comefrom civil law countries.

 [1]http://praguerules.com/news/is-it-time-for-a-change-/.

[2]http://praguerules.com/news/is-it-time-for-a-change-/.

[3] http://praguerules.com/news/draft-prague-rules-released/.

[4] Draft Prague Rules p. 2.

[5] Cf. Commentary on the revised text of the 2010 IBARules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration pp. 7 et seq.

[6] Commentary on the revised text of the 2010 IBARules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration p. 24.